|
|
|
February 21, 2006
The Past and Future of My Education and Yours
Harvard President Larry Summers announced that he will step down as Harvard President from July 1, 2006. Official announcement in the Gazette I'm really, really disappointed. Incredibly disappointed. Larry Summers was hired by the Corporation specifically to do a job, and he was doing it well. That job was to modernize Harvard and bring its system of education into the 21st century, and to ensure it remains the gold standard of higher education around the world. By the very definition of his job, Summers was going to challenge the faculty and make them face very uncomfortable truths- that the general education of America's undergraduates was not adequate to prepare them for the challenges of the modern world; that Harvard, and the other elite universities on the coasts of America, did not have enough intellectual diversity and freedom; that Harvard was out of touch with much of the modern social and political climate in which it finds itself. The sad fact is, Harvard, like all the other major universities of North America, is guilty of all these things. The Corporation was enlightened enough to see this, and to face up to the challenge, and the faculty have shied away from the challenge and battled ferociously to preserve their own self-interest and the status quo. If you read most accounts, it will explain his departure as due to his infamous remarks about women and possible genetic differences with men, and also to his style of governance. It's hypocrisy that the faculty of an academic institution that is supposed to support intellectual freedom were willing to castigate him for his remarks. The fact is, many other professors say things which are routinely accepted because of that same intellectual freedom to experiment and hypothesise. What they were looking for is an excuse to take down a man who was threatening their own personal agendas. Take two specific examples. When I was an undergraduate, it was quite clear to me, even as an ignorant teenager on campus, that Prof. Cornel West was more interested in being famous than in teaching his students. He was off posing with black stars and cutting rap albums. When Summers told him to shape up and concentrate on what he was being paid to do- teach students- West huffily decamped to Princeton. Of course, they were willing to take him in. Secondly, Prof Kirby, who resigned a short while ago, led the much hyped undergraduate core curriculum review. His committee sat around for ages and produced nothing. Absolutely nothing. Their plan looks more like some utopian ideal than a concrete plan for tackling the needs of students to come. As an alumni, I was highly supportive of Larry Summers, and I believe most alumni are too. A survey found that most students (3 out of 4, according to a Crimson survey) supported him as well. At the end of the day, the university is supposed to educate students, and relies very much on us alumni for donations. We expect Harvard to maintain its excellence because a fall in standards lowers the perceived values of our education as well. I think the alumni will see this and there will be repurcussions. I know I am deeply disappointed and ashamed of the Harvard faculty for putting their own narrow interests ahead of a desire to improve Harvard. Two final thoughts- 1. It's very instructive of the nature of leadership that Summers, despite his intellect, credentials, and achievements, could still trip up. His failure has been primarily his deficiency in recognising the opposition to him that would develop. Perhaps it was due to over-optimism, over-confidence or idealism; but it's a reminder that leadership is not just about producing the right ideas, but also about inspiring people to believe in them. 2. What does this mean for Oxford's reforms? Again, I'm very supportive of Vice-Chancellor Hood and I think he's on the right track. I think Oxford should be on the path toward eventual independence, and I think we need to streamline our system of governance, especially in non-academic affairs. We need to be willing to challenge ourselves. Harvard's case is going to scare every university in America and make them shy away from confronting the problems which infect them all. This offers an opportunity for Oxford to learn from Harvard's mistakes and think deeply about where the university has to go in the future. Posted by pj at 10:54 PM
|
|
|
| o |
I think that Oxford is a long way from independence, purely on financial grounds: it is far from having the kind of financial resources or endowment that Harvard has. I am also reluctant to see Britain go down the road of the US in terms of private universities. Education is something that should be open to all who are sufficiently able, regardless of wealth, and you only have to look around the campus at Harvard to see that that is not the case here. We have enough problems with access in Oxford as it is, for the university to go down the road to independence, particularly if it fails to acquire the kind of private funding which would enable it to help students out more. It will simply limit access, thereby creating inequalities and impoverishing Oxford intellectually. In my humble opinion, a lot of the problems Harvard has comes from the commercial production-line attitude to academia that is prevalent in the US: it has become a place of business, a corporation rather than a place of learning, which makes it a more stifling and less intellectually creative place than Oxford was for me as a graduate student. I don't want to see Oxford go down the same path.
Steph spoke on February 22, 2006 02:55 AMActually, most undergraduates don't care. Not ONE person in my 33-student class had an opinion either way. It's just that the Crimson will not take "umm" for an answer.
As for universities and the broader political climate - I'm doubtful if they can ever be in touch, and if they should be even if they could. It's the job of a university (and young people in general) to challenge, not follow. And while Harvard is overwhelmingly liberal (except for the economics department), I am yet to hear convincing evidence that alternative viewpoints are disallowed.
And while I agree with you that Summer's gender comment was blown hugely out of proportion, I'd contest that the standards of *academic* freedom do not apply to him when he speaks in his capacity as Harvard president (which he does any time he speaks in public, whether he explicitely states it or not, since that's what most people assume). He does not speak for himself, as an individual involved in research and advancement of knowledge. He speaks for the university. And his foot is all too often in his mouth.
Diana spoke on February 24, 2006 01:29 PM